Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

My arguments are quite different from "Alex Crawford's" argument. I'm not arguing against the merits of the bill. I'm arguing the overall inability of the bill to address the root cause of the problem it supposedly addresses.

"Daniel Seaver's" argument looks like it could have been lifted verbatim from your posts in this thread.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

"There is no benefit paid to anyone using it".

Holy ****, did you really just say that? Haven't you been saying all along that the entire justification of the ACA is that it provides healthcare to people who didn't have access to it before. Is that not a benefit to those who use it?

My arguments are quite different from "Alex Crawford's" argument. I'm not arguing against the merits of the bill. I'm arguing the overall inability of the bill to address the root cause of the problem it supposedly addresses.

"Daniel Seaver's" argument looks like it could have been lifted verbatim from your posts in this thread.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

"There is no benefit paid to anyone using it".

Holy ****, did you really just say that? Haven't you been saying all along that the entire justification of the ACA is that it provides healthcare to people who didn't have access to it before. Is that not a benefit to those who use it?

You only use health care if you're sick or injured. It's not like you can take it to 7-11 and get beer. Or use it as a way to quit your job so that you can stay home and smoke weed all day.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

Not at first they wouldn't, you are correct. However, once 50% (or some comparable market-analysis-based number) of Americans are on the exchanges, the exchanges will, more than likely, be the cheapest place to get healthcare (more volume = lower prices, in theory). Let me clearly state that that does not necessarily mean that healthcare will be cheaper than it is now overall (though it could be), and almost certainly not cheaper to the consumer than employer-subsidized healthcare, just that it will be the cheapest option at the time for that 50% of Americans (or thereabouts) who don't get employer-subsidized healthcare.

So, in this scenario, the ACA eliminates its own competition as the most consumer-friendly option, while simultaneously making its consumers reliant upon it (and beholden to the agenda that creates/empowers it) for the cheapest available healthcare.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

Not at first they wouldn't, you are correct. However, once 50% (or some comparable market-analysis-based number) of Americans are on the exchanges, the exchanges will, more than likely, be the cheapest place to get healthcare (more volume = lower prices, in theory). Let me clearly state that that does not necessarily mean that healthcare will be cheaper than it is now overall (though it could be), and almost certainly not cheaper to the consumer than employer-subsidized healthcare, just that it will be the cheapest option at the time for that 50% of Americans (or thereabouts) who don't get employer-subsidized healthcare.

So, in this scenario, the ACA eliminates its own competition as the most consumer-friendly option, while simultaneously making its consumers reliant upon it (and beholden to the agenda that creates/empowers it) for the cheapest available healthcare.

If it gets to that point, voting/not voting Democrat won't make a difference. Exchanges will be entrenched.

Unfortunately it seems logical that, to liberals in power, corporations dropping benefits would be a good thing. The more people dependent on government for income/services, the larger their pool of potential voters.

Please explain further.

Sure. It would stand to reason that people who are dependent on liberal social programs for income/services are less likely to vote against the liberal agenda (don't bite the hand that feeds). It would seem to logically follow that the more people that can be made dependent on those programs, the less people that would vote against said agenda.

That doesn't make much sense. The ACA isn't really a social program like food stamps or unemployment. There is no benefit paid to anyone using it. And someone who had health coverage before isn't going to be happy if they have to move into a higher cost or lower coverage health plan. So they probably wouldn't vote liberal if that happened.

Now, if the ACA is a fantastic law that helps a lot of people and makes them happy, there's a chance they will vote for the party responsible for passing the law.

Not at first they wouldn't, you are correct. However, once 50% (or some comparable market-analysis-based number) of Americans are on the exchanges, the exchanges will, more than likely, be the cheapest place to get healthcare (more volume = lower prices, in theory). Let me clearly state that that does not necessarily mean that healthcare will be cheaper than it is now overall (though it could be), and almost certainly not cheaper to the consumer than employer-subsidized healthcare, just that it will be the cheapest option at the time for that 50% of Americans (or thereabouts) who don't get employer-subsidized healthcare.

So, in this scenario, the ACA eliminates its own competition as the most consumer-friendly option, while simultaneously making its consumers reliant upon it (and beholden to the agenda that creates/empowers it) for the cheapest available healthcare.

If it gets to that point, voting/not voting Democrat won't make a difference. Exchanges will be entrenched.

Unless Republicans say "You, working American, are paying more out of pocket for healthcare than you were * years ago. The ACA is every bit the disaster we said it would be when it was passed. Elect us, and we'll get rid of it."

They'd be absolutely right, but do they get the vote of Americans who have had a portion of their health benefits stripped away once already? Probably not. Those Americans, while recognizing that the other party brought them to this point, probably vote to keep whatever they have left.

And this exercise illuminates the largest problem with the ACA. It might be a good thing for the majority of Americans (you may say 85% chance, I may say 15% chance) but, if it isn't, it will be too late to do anything about it if we wait for it all to shake out instead of fixing it now. It will be, as you said, entrenched.

In reality, it's unlikely that everyone (or 50% of the population) will end up in the exchanges. Employers provide benefits to keep good employees. That will continue since most people don't qualify for the exchange subsidy. The exchanges aren't designed to be a safety net.

If it doesn't work, the next logical step is single payer. The system we had before wasn't working and was/is headed for catastrophe.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/10/2013 5:57:00 PM (view original):You could use the same reasoning to argue against any legislation.

In reality, it's unlikely that everyone (or 50% of the population) will end up in the exchanges. Employers provide benefits to keep good employees. That will continue since most people don't qualify for the exchange subsidy. The exchanges aren't designed to be a safety net.

If it doesn't work, the next logical step is single payer. The system we had before wasn't working and was/is headed for catastrophe.

Let me fix that for you:

In reality, it's quite likely that 50% of the population will end up in the exchanges. Employers started providing benefits as a way around wage control laws passed during WWII, because they couldn't offer raises. It was adopted as a requirement in union contracts, and it has continued because the expectation was set that working Americans would have access to health insurance (which they do regardless, under the ACA). The exchanges were not designed to be a safety net, but will almost certainly be used that way by companies, due to the relative cost of the penalty vs. the cost of continuing to provide subsidized healthcare, while competing in a global marketplace against companies from other countries that don't absorb that cost. P.S. - companies like to maximize profits.

Single payer is another argument, and I fail to see how that is "the next logical step".